Runoffs

[Obama Llama Glama]

Do states have the right to hold runoff fpr presidential elections?

[Virginiá]

States determine how to allocate electoral votes, more or less. However, Congress also regulates federal elections, so in this case I believe Congress could allow it, but doesn't right now. Federal law does allow a state to hold a run-off if their is a tie / other issue in the vote, but Constitutionally it has to be held 6 days prior to when the electors cast their votes.

Relevant:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

[SteveRogers]

States determine how to allocate electoral votes, more or less. However, Congress also regulates federal elections, so in this case I believe Congress could allow it, but doesn't right now. Federal law does allow a state to hold a run-off if their is a tie / other issue in the vote, but Constitutionally it has to be held 6 days prior to when the electors cast their votes.

Relevant:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

I'm pretty sure a state could hold a runoff if they wanted under the existing law just like Louisiana is able to have runoffs for congressional and senate races.

[Mike Thick]

I would like this. It would be especially nice in situations like 2000 and 1992, where a candidate won with a plurality (and many think the other would have won if not for the third party).

[Virginiá]

States determine how to allocate electoral votes, more or less. However, Congress also regulates federal elections, so in this case I believe Congress could allow it, but doesn't right now. Federal law does allow a state to hold a run-off if their is a tie / other issue in the vote, but Constitutionally it has to be held 6 days prior to when the electors cast their votes.

Relevant:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

I'm pretty sure a state could hold a runoff if they wanted under the existing law just like Louisiana is able to have runoffs for congressional and senate races.

Right. I only meant for presidential elections. The US Code part I was reading was related to presidential elections and by my clumsy interpretation, I think it means there would have to be an issue to have a runoff.

It's an interesting question, and I could be wrong. I've never heard the idea mentioned anywhere at the state level. A state can change how it awards its electoral votes, but I was under the impression Congress set the presidential election day and any other additional election (such as a runoff) for president would have to fall under certain conditions.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I'm not sure if it's a good idea.

[SteveRogers]

States determine how to allocate electoral votes, more or less. However, Congress also regulates federal elections, so in this case I believe Congress could allow it, but doesn't right now. Federal law does allow a state to hold a run-off if their is a tie / other issue in the vote, but Constitutionally it has to be held 6 days prior to when the electors cast their votes.

Relevant:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

I'm pretty sure a state could hold a runoff if they wanted under the existing law just like Louisiana is able to have runoffs for congressional and senate races.

Right. I only meant for presidential elections. The US Code part I was reading was related to presidential elections and by my clumsy interpretation, I think it means there would have to be an issue to have a runoff.

It's an interesting question, and I could be wrong. I've never heard the idea mentioned anywhere at the state level. A state can change how it awards its electoral votes, but I was under the impression Congress set the presidential election day and any other additional election (such as a runoff) for president would have to fall under certain conditions.

My point was just that the law setting the date for appointing electors seems to have the same meaning as the law setting a uniform date for congressional elections, and yet Louisiana apparently gets away with holding their jungle primary on the prescribed date but then holding their runoff in December.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/7

I suppose if a state tried it, it could certainly be challenged in court.

I'm not sure if it's a good idea.

It sure would have saved the country a lot of hassle in Florida in 2000. However, you could of course get weird effects if some states started doing it but not others. But I think that just reveals why the electoral college is silly and should be done away with.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's not in the interest of the Republicrats to have runoffs in the event that no one gets a majority.  By eliminating the spectre of the "wasted vote", they'd make it more likely that a third party could gain steam and eventually replace one of the two incumbent parties.

[SingingAnalyst]

It's not in the interest of the Republicrats to have runoffs in the event that no one gets a majority.  By eliminating the spectre of the "wasted vote", they'd make it more likely that a third party could gain steam and eventually replace one of the two incumbent parties.

I agree, though delayed runoffs would not necessarily give the same result as IRV. An example is the 2008 GA Senate race, in which Chambliss (R) and his Dem opponent both finished under 50%. There is no way of knowing for sure who would have won with IRV. In real life, however, where the runoff was held 4 weeks later (and everyone knew Obama and the Dems had won big), Chambliss trounced his Dem opponent 57%-43%. A hypothetical MN runoff might have re-elected Coleman as well.